Animals Have Souls Too

UU

Christianity has always taught that it is only humans who possess a soul. If I'm wrong please correct me but in school I was taught that under Catholicism animals do not possess souls.

I have a dog. Her name is Sandy and love her. I truly believe she has a soul like you and I. When I stroke her and love her, she loves me too. Even when my young sister hurts herself, Sandy comes over and tries to comfort her as she is worried about her. Other animals are different but all in all they have something there in different degrees. Some animals show love such as apes, dogs, dolphins. Apparantly the Bible says that animals actually do have souls according to this article I found on the net which worth a read:

The Writings of Vasu Murti

Animals Have Souls: Part 1

One widespread rationalization in Christian circles, often used to justify humanity’s mistreatment of animals, is the erroneous belief that humans alone possess immortal souls, and only humans, therefore, are worthy of moral consideration. The 19th century German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer, condemned such a philosophy in his On the Basis of Morality.

"Because Christian morality leaves animals out of account," wrote Schopenhauer, "they are at once outlawed in philosophical morals; they are mere ‘things,’ mere means to any ends whatsoever. They can therefore be used for vivisection, hunting, coursing, bullfights, and horse racing, and can be whipped to death as they struggle along with heavy carts of stone. Shame on such a morality that is worthy of pariahs, and that fails to recognize the eternal essence that exists in every living thing, and shines forth with inscrutable significance from all eyes that see the sun!"

According to the Bible, animals have souls. Texts such as Genesis 1:21,24 are often mistranslated to read "living creatures." The exact Hebrew used in reference to animals throughout the Bible is "nephesh chayah," or "living soul." This is how the phrase has been translated in Genesis 2:7 and in four hundred other places in the Old Testament. Thus, Genesis 1:30 should more accurately read: "And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is a living soul, I have given every green herb for meat."

God breathed the "breath of life" into man, and caused him to become a living soul. (Genesis 2:7) Animals have the same "breath of life" as do humans. (Genesis 7:15, 22) Numbers 16:22 refers to the Lord as "the God of spirits of all flesh." In Numbers 31:28, God commands Moses to divide up among the people the cattle, sheep, asses and human prisoners captured in battle and to give to the Lord "one soul of five hundred" of both humans and animals alike. Psalm 104 says God provides for animals and their ensoulment.

"O Lord, how innumerable are Thy works; in wisdom Thou hast made them all! The earth is full of Thy well-made creations. All these look to Thee to furnish their timely feed. When Thou providest for them, they gather it. Thou openest Thy hand, and they are satisfied with good things. When Thou hidest Thy face, they are struck with despair. When Thou cuttest off their breath, in death they return to their dust. Thou sendest Thy Spirit and more are created, and Thou dost replenish the surface of the earth."

Similarly, the apocryphal Book of Judith praises God, saying, "Let every creature serve You, for You spoke and they were made. You sent forth Your Spirit and they were created." Job 12:10 teaches that in God’s hand "is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind."

Ecclesiastes 3:19-20 says humans have no advantage over animals: "They all draw the same breath...all came from the dust, and to dust all return."

The verse that immediately follows asks, "Who knows if the spirit of man goes upward, and the spirit of the beast goes down to the earth?" The exact Hebrew word for "spirit," "ruach," is used in connection with animals as well as humans. Ecclesiastes 12:7 concludes that "the spirit shall return unto God who gave it."

This position was taken by Paul, who called himself an apostle to the gentiles. Paul spoke of God as the "giver of life and breath and all things to everyone." (Acts 17:25) In his epistle to the Romans 8:18-25, Paul wrote that the entire creation, and not just mankind, is awaiting redemption.

Revelations 16:3 also refers to the souls of animals: "The second angel poured out his bowl upon the sea, so that it turned to blood as of a corpse, and every living soul that was in the sea died." The exact Greek word for soul, "psyche," was used in the original texts.

English theologian Joseph Butler (1692-1752), a contemporary of John Wesley’s, was born in a Presbyterian family, joined the Church of England, and eventually became a bishop and dean of St. Paul’s. In his 1736 work, The Analogy of Religion, Bishop Butler became one of the first clergymen to teach the immortality of animal souls. "Neither can we find anything in the whole analogy of Nature to afford even the slightest presumption that animals ever lose their living powers, much less that they lose them by death," he wrote.

The Reverend John George Wood (1827-89) was an eloquent and prolific writer on the subject of animals. A popular lecturer on the subject of natural history, he wrote several books as well, such as My Feathered Friends and Man and Beast—Here and Hereafter. Wood believed most people were cruel to animals because they were unaware that the creatures possessed immortal souls and would enjoy eternal life.

One of the most scholarly studies on the issue of animal souls was undertaken by Elijah D. Buckner in his 1903 book The Immortality of Animals. He concluded: "...The Bible, without the shadow of a doubt, recognizes that animals have living souls the same as man. Most of the quotations given are represented as having been spoken by the Creator Himself, and he certainly knows whether or not He gave to man and lower animals alike a living soul, which of course means an immortal soul."

Influenced by Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas, the Church of Rome maintains that animals lack souls or divinity, even though such a doctrine contradicts many biblical passages. Previously, during the Synod of Macon (585 AD), the Church had debated whether or not women have souls! Women in the Western world are finally being recognized as persons in every sense of the word—social, political and spiritual. Animals have yet to be given the same kind of moral consideration.

Pope Innocent VIII of the Renaissance required that when witches were burned, their cats be burned with them; Pope Pius IX of the 19th century forbade the formation of an SPCA in Rome, declaring humans had no duty to animals; Pope Pius XII of World War II stated that when animals are killed in slaughterhouses or laboratories, "...their cries should not arouse unreasonable compassion any more than do red-hot metals undergoing the blows of the hammer;" and Pope Paul VI in 1972, by blessing a batallion of Spanish bullfighters, became the first Pope to bestow his benediction upon one cruelty even the Church had condemned. http://www.all-creatures.org/murti/tsnhod-08.html

UU

Animals Have Souls: Part 2

In Christianity and the Rights of Animals, the Reverend Andrew Linzey responds to the widespread Christian misconception that animals have no souls by taking it to its logical conclusion:

"But let us suppose for a moment that it could be shown that animals lack immortal souls, does it follow that their moral status is correspondingly weakened? It is difficult to see in what sense it could be. If animals are not to be recompensated with an eternal life, how much more difficult must it be to justify their temporal sufferings?

"If, for an animal, this life is all that he can have, the moral gravity of any premature termination is thereby increased rather than lessened...In short, if we invoke the traditional argument against animals based on soullessness, we are not exonerated from the need for proper moral justification.

"Indeed, if the traditional view is upheld, the question has to be: How far can any proposed aim justify to the animal concerned what would seem to be a greater deprivation or injury than if the same were inflicted on a human being?"

"Mark Twain remarked long ago that human beings have a lot to learn from the Higher Animals," writes Unitarian minister Gary Kowalski, in his 1991 book, The Souls of Animals. "Just because they haven’t invented static cling, ICBM’s, or television evangelists doesn’t mean they aren’t spiritually evolved."

Kowalski’s definition of "spiritually evolved" includes "the development of a moral sense, the appreciation of beauty, the capacity for creativity, and the awareness of one’s self within a larger universe as well as a sense of mystery and wonder about it all. These are the most precious gifts we possess...

"I am a parish minister by vocation," Kowalski explains. "My work involves the intangible and perhaps undefinable realm of spirit. I pray with the dying and counsel the bereaved. I take part in the joy of parents christening their newborns and welcoming fresh life into the world.

"I occasionally help people think through moral quandries and make ethical decisions, and I also share a responsibility for educating the young, helping them realize their inborn potential for reverence and compassion. Week after week I stand before my congregation and try to talk about the greatest riddles of human existence. In recent years, however, I have become aware that human beings are not the only animals on this planet that participate in affairs of the spirit."

Kowalski notes that animals are aware of death. They have a sense of their own mortality, and grieve at the loss of companions. Animals possess language, musical abilities, a sense of the mysterious, creativity and playfulness. Animals possess a sense of right and wrong; they are capable of fidelity, altruism, and even self-sacrifice.

"Animals, like us, are microcosms," says Kowalski. "They too care and have feelings; they too dream and create; they too are adventuresome and curious about their world. They too reflect the glory of the whole.

"Can we open our hearts to the animals? Can we greet them as our soul mates, beings like ourselves who possess dignity and depth? To do so, we must learn to revere and respect the creatures, who, like us, are a part of God’s beloved creation, and to cherish the amazing planet that sustains our mutual existence.

"Animals," Kowalski concludes, "are living souls. They are not things. They are not objects. Neither are they human. Yet they mourn. They love. They dance. They suffer. They know the peaks and chasms of being."http://www.all-creatures.org/murti/tsnhod-08.html

I hope you enjoyed the article and it gave you some food for thought. Feel free to post and give comments (but nothing offensive please). Long live the souls of all!

P.S. The late Pope also believed animals have souls:

Well, in a public audience on January 19th 1990 Pope John Paul II said "also the animals possess a soul and men must love and feel solidarity with smaller brethren" He pointed out that in Genesis "the way in which man was created suggests a relationship with the spirit or the breath of God. And one reads that after having created man from the dust of the earth, the Lord God 'breathed life into his nostrils and man became a living soul.'" He went on to say that animals have the breath of life and were given it by God. So, in this respect, man, created by the hand of God, is identical with all other living creatures. Although the pope's statement was reported in the Italian press it was not reported in the UK and was ignored by British Catholic publications.

bmoferrall

There's a tub of left-over beef stroganoff in my fridge and it's got my name written all over it

Puck

I have to confess I just don't think about this much at all. If I get to heaven and there are animals there, then wahey! I love animals! My old dog Timmy! Yay! However if they're not there I don't think I'll mind, what with being in heaven and all. I beileve I read some Chirstian literature once that said that animals have souls but no spirit... or vice versa... I can't really remember, it was quite a boring booklet.

junkyard

Thanks for the article UU. As far as I'm concerned I always felt animals had souls but what upsets me most is how cruel nature is. If there is a heaven I'm sure animals are there too. Some of my best friends were and are animals and I'd love to meet them again. If I had to chose between a human heaven and one where my dogs are I'd chose the one where my dogs are anyday.

BrianCalgary

Animals with souls? I don't think so. Man is th eonly creature made in the image of God. Hence we ar eth eonly ones with a soul. Animals in Heaven? You bet. My Rippy? nope. Wirehaired terriers? Yep. The Alberta beef on my dinner plate? can't wait.

I find it interesting though UU, how you decry the RC church on the stance it takes on many issues yet now use the claims of those same popes to back-up this issue?

Asiaprod

BrianCalgary wrote:

I find it interesting though UU, how you decry the RC church on the stance it takes on many issues yet now use the claims of those same popes to back-up this issue?

Why?, you said yourself that UU only decries the RC on many issues, that has to mean not all issues. Hell, I even support them on some issues. I think you would have to look really hard to find a religion that has no meritable points:)

Dirk Gently

What is a soul?

Who says who gets a soul and who doesn’t?

Does the person who gives out the souls exist, is he been properly interpreted by the RC church and therefore do souls exist.
Does my keyboard or the tree out my back garden have a soul? I can't prove that I have one and I can't prove that the tree out my back hasn’t got one.

I am inclined to think that a soul is just wishful thinking and religious propaganda but don't mind me, I'm an atheist so I would say that.

If the OP wants to believe that her pet dog sandy has a soul then all you have to do is believe it and then you will think she has one. If this is helpful and makes you feel more comfortable then good luck with that and nobody can reasonable dispute you. That’s the beauty of religion, you don't have to prove anything, no matter how crazy it sounds the onus is on everyone else to dis prove it. If anyone gives you hassle just tell them that god appeared to you in a dream and gave you a list of people and animals with a soul and little sandy was on the list. Nobody can argue with you. If they come back at you with church teachings tell them God told you personally and that the church is misrepresenting him.




*It's all bollix

Rev Hellfire

BrianCalgary wrote:

Animals with souls? I don't think so. Man is th eonly creature made in the image of God. Hence we ar eth eonly ones with a soul.

Ahh the mind numbing arrogance of the Christian belief that if there are souls, that humanity alone among all of creation has them.
If we assume that there exists the distinct possibility other intelligent life somewhere out in the cosmos (a more likely idea than a supernatural force which has for some inconceivable reason taken a shine to us) that we alone are blessed with these souls is just illogical.
I for one certainly believe that we have been gifted with souls then the question is when did we get them, at what stage in our evolution did the we acquire this blessing?
If it was from right at the start, then what of our primate cousins? Or do you need a certain level of intelligence before you can be granted one of these wonderful things?

Asiaprod

Rev Hellfire wrote:

If it was from right at the start, then what of our primate cousins? Or do you need a certain level of intelligence before you can be granted one of these wonderful things?

Now that is an interesting question. Strange nobody has asked it before.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

actually I'm fairly sure hundreds of people throughout history have asked that question many times before.

they might not have answered it satisfactorily, because it is kind of a silly question.

Asiaprod

Mordeth wrote:

actually I'm fairly sure hundreds of people throughout history have asked that question many times before.

they might not have answered it satisfactorily, because it is kind of a silly question.

I really do not believe any honest question is silly. As knowledge, understanding, times and attitudes change, so also do the answers and more light gets to shine on the issues. Bear in mind, while christianity may not hold with animals having souls, many sects of Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism would tell you otherwise. Some of them to a fanatical degree. In Japan you would not believe the number of shrines that exist dedicated to the humble Fox.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

that just means that lots of people in japan think that foxes have souls, it does absolutely nothing to answer the question of whether or not foxes have souls.

people have put shrines up to almost everything over the last couple of thousand years. foxes, pigs, carpenters sons. *shrug*

Rev Hellfire

Mordeth wrote:

because it is kind of a silly question.

It’s certainly no more silly than assuming people have souls in the first place. Since if you do believe that people have souls and you’re not using some throwback to medieval thinking, then asking at what point in our evolutionary development is a pretty valid question in my ohhh so humble opinion.
Perhaps you'll explain why its an silly question with respect to the topic in hand or are you perhaps referring to the overall belief in souls as been silly ?

Mm, if anyone has souls (which I'm coming around to believe not) then I'd say we all do including animals

robindch

> Now that is an interesting question. Strange nobody has asked it before.

It did kinda turn up in a link which I posted to the creationism thread a while back. The link is on William Dembski's blog at:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1075

...in which members of the Spanish Socalist Party were talking about extending some basic human rights to other primates. The comments down at the bottom of the page are worth reading.

Dades

I've definitely asked that question on Boards before. If we have soul - at what stage in our evolution did we get one?

I'd also like to ask UU if he believes bacteria have souls.

Surely the purpose of a soul is to have a part of you experience an afterlife. If your afterlife is determined by the life you lead, are we now suggesting good dogs go to heaven and bad dogs go to hell?

Animals have no sense of right and wrong, unless you count where domestic animals have been "trained" to behave in a certain way.

Hang on a minute...

BrianCalgary

The Atheist wrote:

I've at what stage in our evolution did we get one?

I'd also like to ask UU if he believes bacteria have souls.

Surely the purpose of a soul is to have a part of you experience an afterlife. If your afterlife is determined by the life you lead, are we now suggesting good dogs go to heaven and bad dogs go to hell?

Animals have no sense of right and wrong, unless you count where domestic animals have been "trained" to behave in a certain way.

Since evolution is not how God created evrything we got humanity got there soul when God created Adam and Eve.

The soul is what is created for eternity and since we have choice we are held accountable. We receive our wish as to where we spend eternity.

UU

BrianCalgary wrote:

Since evolution is not how God created evrything we got humanity got there soul when God created Adam and Eve.

The soul is what is created for eternity and since we have choice we are held accountable. We receive our wish as to where we spend eternity.

Sorry Brian but that is not fact that we didn't come from evolution. It is your belief we came to be from the Genesis account. Also, the Bible clearly says that animals have souls, maybe a different type of soul but a soul nonetheless and I thought you took the Bible to definate truth and literal and without error?!

What is it that defines us as "living"? The wind is non-living and when we die, we are dead. Animals are still creatures of this Earth. They work on the same principles as us but on a lesser degree in some areas. Many animals are much more intelligent than most humans think. For example, elephants have a brilliant memory and they mourn like humans when another elephant dies. Organisation, nutrition, excretion, response and reproduction are the five characteristics of life which define beings as living. I believe that it is the soul that also defines us as being alive. Then again believe what you want . . . . .

The Atheist, that's an interesting question regarding bacteria and other micro-organisms possessing a soul. Well, bacteria are different in that they are prokaryotes. They are alive but very different. I believe they have moreso a "life breath" which makes them exist and alive but not like animals (that is multicellular). The same applies for plants and certain animals.

Keep the replies coming, thanks!

neuro-praxis

Aquinas said that there are three levels of soul.

1. Vegetative
2. Sensitive
3. Rational

According to him, plants have vegetative souls. Animals have vegetative and sensitive souls. Humans have vegetative, sensitive and rational souls.

When he said "soul" he didn't mean some floaty spirit inside the body that lifts off at death, rather some kind of fulfilling of the purpose that God has planned for the plant, animal or person. For example, a plant would demonstrate its soul through its growth.

He also argued that animals have emotions. I think I would agree with this for the most part.

However the only soul that reconnects with the divine in death is the rational.

In my opinion your dogs and cats will not be in heaven. Why? Because the bible says nothing about it. Also, men are given dominion over the animals (i.e., permission to eat them) so why would our munched-up dinners be joining us in paradise?

Tar.Aldarion

Well UU, as for Christianity, I have no idea what has a soul and what des not. Seems they can not agree.

In my opinion, everthing alive has a soul, or nothing has a soul. This of course depends on definitions of life and of a soul, which vary greatly.

MeditationMom

Thank you, first of all, for the many quotes in support of the idea that animals have, or may have souls and therefore deserve to be treated by us as God's beloved creatures. Nice research.

I would challenge all meat eaters to go out and kill their own animals, but only after thay have spent much time and effort in raising them. If still that hungry after that, enjoy your meat with deep gratitude and thank God and the animal for giving its life for your culinary pleasure, even though you should have only been so arrogant to take another's life for your own purposes, if your life was truely in jeopardy. If even then. It does not matter whether we agree about souls or even what scripture says - let your heart and your conscience be your guide, not your stomach.

No offense to meateaters, especially grateful and respectful ones, but using scripture to explain or justify - what in the Western World - is not meat eating for pure survival, but, well, gluttony - just hop onto your scale and have a good honest look - it'd do us good to be kinder to animals, now, wouldn't it? As far as the chickens go - looks like God is sending us a pretty impressive plaque to wake us up, since we didn't get the message with mad cow disease. We'll learn eventually. God is infinitely patient with us and all creatures, great and small find their peace in him, no matter how insanely we all treat each other here. A hug to all the dogs in this forum - they are good teachers of kindness, trust, selflessness, joy of life, and love. And a blessing for the meat on your dinner table.

Ah, yes, and my title - since we do not know...why not err on the side of the life of one of God's creatures?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

yeah but that's not all, he's sending hurricanes against the states, tsunamis against indonesia and americans against middle eastern people.

clearly he doesn't think we're important enough to warrant his own personal intervention. He spoke to people back in the day, it's sad we haven't heard his voice in so long.

UU

Hi MeditationMom,

You must be new here so I and the rest of the crew welcome you to this crazy world of Boards.ie! I really liked your post, I was very funny and true! I'm not a big meat-eater. In fact, I'll only eat chicken and fish and my parents raised me on a vegetarian-based diet. I definately support SPCAs in their valuable work. Un-nessessary cruelty to our beloved creatures is totally wrong. (Now I'm starting to sound like a hippy!) God put us on the top of the food chain, though......

neuro-praxis, that was interesting regarding the levels of the soul. Although, I still believe certain animals do enter heaven but then again I'm not Christian so I have no obligation the believe otherwise.

The Bible says only certain animals are allowed to be eaten such as cattle and sheep. That is, the Kosher law, which most Christians choose to forget about. The "clean" animals can be eaten and the "unclean" ones cannot such as pigs, dogs, seafood (excluding fish).

MeditationMom

Hi again UU
Thanks for the welcoming words - I feel happy and at home with all of you.

Thanks to HairyHeretic I now can even qoute with blue boxes - yeah!!! Thank you HairyHeretic!

I also still eat some fish once in a while, especially if it is a gift from a fishing friend.

Mordeth - you are right. I also don't believe "God sends" plagues, tsunamis, hurricanes (although some peolpe here think Bush does, with a giant windmachine, hidden in Russia ) It was said "tongue in cheek". Nature will do what nature will do, neither good nor evil. Since animal raising has become so far removed from nature - feeding dead sheep to cows, and who knows what to chickens - we are creating some interesting natural events in response to our present practises. The resulting suffering may bring some closer to God. I actually don't like to use the word God at all, since everyone has such different understanding of what it means. But how to avoid it?

We haven't heard from God in a long time? When was the last time you went outside and heard the wind whistle in a tree, or a bird singing in the early morning hours, or a child laugh or sing? Could it be you haven't listened in a long time "God's voice" is deep within you. You listen with it.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

right, but I was talking about floods, sending fire from the sky.. angels flying about and delivering warnings to sinners.. that kind of thing he's fallen away from lately.

When was the last time you went outside and heard the wind whistle in a tree, or a bird singing in the early morning hours,

every morning, I work the night shift so I see dawn every day. It's very nice, but it's nothing magical. You'd think the creator of the universe would have a slightly more advanced form of communication that weather and birds.

Dades

MeditationMom wrote:

As far as the chickens go - looks like God is sending us a pretty impressive plaque to wake us up

Even if that comment was tongue in cheek, I can't help but wonder why the plague starts where the people actually need their animals to survive. What you see as a sign of Gods existence, I can't help but see as the opposite.

pbsuxok1znja4r

The Atheist wrote:

Even if that comment was tongue in cheek, I can't help but wonder why the plague starts where the people actually need their animals to survive. What you see as a sign of Gods existence, I can't help but see as the opposite.

Didn't she say a plaque to wake us up? I know I wake up in a cold sweat many nights; worrying about plaque and tooth decay.
Good point, though. I agree, for "I don't believe in an interventionist god, but I know, darling, that you do". If ever there were signs of the intervention of a benevolent, omnipotent god, this wasn't one of 'em.

neuro-praxis

UU wrote:

The Bible says only certain animals are allowed to be eaten such as cattle and sheep. That is, the Kosher law, which most Christians choose to forget about. The "clean" animals can be eaten and the "unclean" ones cannot such as pigs, dogs, seafood (excluding fish).

I'm afraid this is a myth. In Acts 10 in the NT is a clear teaching that all meat is good to eat. Kosher rules were abolished at this point.

MeditationMom

What you see as a sign of Gods existence, I can't help but see as the opposite.

This is a misunderstanding. I do not see this (a plague, or any other natural disaster) as a sign of God's existence. I see it as the existence of the laws of nature. I don't think God's existence can be proven in a scientific sense. It can only be a revelation. Or do you think Jesus was a nutcase?

You'd think the creator of the universe would have a slightly more advanced form of communication than weather and birds.

He may, but who is listening? Such a low opinion of the weather and the birds. What kind of communication would be better? Any suggestions?

Dades

MeditationMom wrote:

He may, but who is listening? Such a low opinion of the weather and the birds. What kind of communication would be better? Any suggestions?

An unambiguous one for a start.

I know this is going OT, but what is so wrong about making things clear?
I reckon God appearing with a message to every human on earth simultaneously, would make a lot of people think about the consequences of their actions.

How would this in theory be different than the appearance of Jesus?

How can God be surprised at peoples lack of fear of his retribution, when his method of communication is so archaic?

Rev Hellfire

What god needs is a good PR person.

Dades

Rev Hellfire wrote:

What god needs is a good PR person.

I'm sure Jesus was a great PR person - but being mortal isn't the most definitive way of convincing people that you are God. There are too many other mortals who claim(ed) the same thing for a start.

Scofflaw

The Atheist wrote:

An unambiguous one for a start.

I know this is going OT, but what is so wrong about making things clear?
I reckon God appearing with a message to every human on earth simultaneously, would make a lot of people think about the consequences of their actions.

How would this in theory be different than the appearance of Jesus?

How can God be surprised at peoples lack of fear of his retribution, when his method of communication is so archaic?

As I've said before, if I chose to communicate my views on life and morality to my daughter solely by leaving a book detailing my early life (which contains many things that I wouldn't recommend) somewhere on the bookshelves, and occasionally wiping out all her teddybears, I would hardly be surprised if she was confused as to my wishes.

The problem (for me) is that God doesn't even measure up to human standards.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

MeditationMom wrote:

Any suggestions?

Big red writting in the sky might be a start

Zombrex

neuro-praxis wrote:

I'm afraid this is a myth. In Acts 10 in the NT is a clear teaching that all meat is good to eat. Kosher rules were abolished at this point.

Well not really. Yes that is the classical interpretatoin of Acts 10, but I've read it a few times, and the most obvious interpretation is that only the animals put in front of Peter or clean, because God has given them to him and God wouldn't give him unclean animals. God has made them clean. This is supposed to be a metephor for humanity, that God made all humanity clean so no one is unclean if they turn to Jesus

But the normal animals are still unclean. Well that seems to be the most obvious interpretation

Big Kay

UU-I dont see how you can tie the fact that your dog show affection for youto it having a soul? Just because an animal shows affection doesnt mean they have a soul, what is your definition of a soul in the first place? Did you ever consider that your dog has a vested instictive interest in obeying you, playing with you etc. P.S. no offence but I find iot very hard to take someone serioisly who has a balck eyed peas quote as their signature, you couldnt find a more false hollower lyric if you tried.

Mordeth-The whole principle behind a Christian God is that we were created with free will, a free will to do good and bad. What would be the point of God showing himself and telling us all we must be good or else? People choose how to act and the idea or theory is that those who believe through faith and act on the principles of Christianity will (to put it simply) go to heaven. Do you really believe God is to be blamed for not intervening in man made problems? If one believes that the universe was created by God then the hurricanes and landslides you speak of are just a blink of the eye in the bigger picture

MeditationMom

The whole principle behind a Christian God is that we were created with free will, a free will to do good and bad.

This should take us right back to the original question of whether animals have souls. And like you suggest, BigK, we need to start by defining what we mean by soul to start with.

Would we all agree that animals have feelings and emotions a lot like ours? Then simple compassion would have us treat them properly.

But since we are in a Soul or no Soul discussion - I think we need to take a look at free will. Free will is usually defined in the negative. In other words "free will" equals "your will against God's will". What if free will means that we have a choice to go beyond our animal nature and be free to be spiritual beings, even if it is against the body's biological needs and urges?

Let's see some definitions of "Soul" and "Free Will".

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

Big red writting in the sky might be a start

Coming back from the dead was pretty good. Raising Lazarus from the dead afetr 4 days rates highly. No matter what miracles He would perform you would look for some sort of explanation for it as opposed to attributing it to the almighty God.

Tar.Aldarion

Vampire?


In all honesty, had I seen said miracles, I would not believe he was a god.
I would need to have a chat with the lad.

BrianCalgary

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Vampire?


In all honesty, had I seen said miracles, I would not believe he was a god.
I would need to have a chat with the lad.

And He is available for that chat. Through prayer. Not the 'repeat after me kind' but an honest heart to heart. I was just chatting with Him this morning. And He answered. Give it a shot. :cool:

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

Coming back from the dead was pretty good. Raising Lazarus from the dead afetr 4 days rates highly. No matter what miracles He would perform you would look for some sort of explanation for it as opposed to attributing it to the almighty God.

Maybe so, but he could at least try a bit harder ...

Coming back from the dead is impressive if he did it in front of a whole load of people, like a room full of doctors. Doing it in a cave on your own isn't that impressive to be honest

Dades

BrianCalgary wrote:

No matter what miracles He would perform you would look for some sort of explanation for it as opposed to attributing it to the almighty God.

You mean other explanations, hoaxes etc. would be considered and rejected before attributing it to the almighty God? Absolutely. It would foolish not to. If God created the Universe then I think he'd have the imagination to do something irrefutable like lining up the planets in conjuction with a message delivered in every language ever spoken.

MeditationMom wrote:

Mordeth-The whole principle behind a Christian God is that we were created with free will, a free will to do good and bad. What would be the point of God showing himself and telling us all we must be good or else?

So what was he doing talking to Moses? Or sending his son?

The point is has did* show himself and tell us we must be good or else. But his message was on such a very human scale that it completely missed most of mankind until exploration and communication centuries later brought the "gift" of Christianity abroad.

* allegedly

Zombrex

The Atheist wrote:

If God created the Universe then I think he'd have the imagination to do something irrefutable like lining up the planets in conjuction with a message delivered in every language ever spoken.

Now that would be impressive

I agree with you Atheist, I find it funny that if there is a God he chooses to communicate with us in very human terms, rather than in godly terms. It naturally leads to confusion and doubt because it is very hard to tell the difference between a communication from God and a communication from humans, either believe they speak for God, or hoaking on purpose.

If God moved all the planets into alignment to spell GOD or something, well it would be kinda hard to say that was a haox or down to a missunderstanding.

For a creature that has complete power over everything, I would imagine that would be rather trivial.

God has never (allegedly) done anything that cannot also be just as well explained in natural terms (eg creationism vs evolution) or dimissed as a hoax, exageration or mistake (eg resurrection of Christ).

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

maybe all the planets in the universe DO spell god, just not in our language.


think about that

Zombrex

Mordeth wrote:

maybe all the planets in the universe DO spell god, just not in our language.


think about that

My brain ... my brain .. :eek:

MeditationMom

Atheist- I don't think that quote is from me - it doesn't matter much, but given how much time we try to undo misunderstandings in our communications....
My fault, too, since I didn't put the "Originally posted by Name" in front of the quote I was using - is there a quick way of doing that or do I have to spell that out each time in a quote?

Asiaprod

MeditationMom wrote:

Atheist- I don't think that quote is from me - it doesn't matter much, but given how much time we try to undo misunderstandings in our communications....
My fault, too, since I didn't put the "Originally posted by Name" in front of the quote I was using - is there a quick way of doing that or do I have to spell that out each time in a quote?

Do it this way

xxxxxx wrote:

. xxxxx is the name of the poster.

Dades

MeditationMom wrote:

Atheist- I don't think that quote is from me

Sorry MM! My bad - should have been directed at Big Kay.

The point is still valid I guess.

Talliesin

UU wrote:

neuro-praxis, that was interesting regarding the levels of the soul. Although, I still believe certain animals do enter heaven but then again I'm not Christian so I have no obligation the believe otherwise.

A similar view is seen in quite a few belief systems (it's been argued this particular writing was influenced by the Egyptian view on "souls"). In RC doctrine it's been later expressed that all animals have spirit, but only humans have souls. It's largely a matter of definition.

UU wrote:

The Bible says only certain animals are allowed to be eaten such as cattle and sheep. That is, the Kosher law, which most Christians choose to forget about. The "clean" animals can be eaten and the "unclean" ones cannot such as pigs, dogs, seafood (excluding fish).

The kosher law was never seen as something which it was inherently immoral to go against, it is followed because that was part of the covenant between G*d and his chosen people. Avoiding pigmeat and shellfish in the middle eastern climate before refrigeration isn't the worse idea - G*d was on the ball when he said that one it appears.

Comparatively, there are a few rules on this website's forums here that just reiterate basic concepts of how to deal with other people on forums - even if there was no such rule we'd have a general concensus of not tolerating such behaviour. And there are some rules which are relatively arbitrary but part of how we all get on (having a 301 pixels wide, 126 pixels tall image of 20481bytes in size isn't that much worse than the 300 * 125 @ 20480bytes you're allowed). There is a difference between "this is wrong" and "this is against the rules" that is acknowledged in the Judaic faith, indeed quite explicitly in that not all the rules have to be followed to be considered a Righteous Gentile.

However, it does seem that the prohibitions on muzzling the ox that treads out the corn (Deuteronomy 25:4) or yolking together an ox and an ass (Deuteronomy 22:10) were based on considerations of kindness.

While RC doctrine does not, as you say, allow that animals have souls, or at least not of the same nature as those of people, and while it follows that animals do not have rights per se, it does not follow that cruelty to animals is condoned, indeed it has been condemned repeatedly by the Church - not on the basis of the rights of animals, but of the duties of people.

MeditationMom

Thank you Asiaprod for yet another computer breakthrough :rolleyes: in my life.

So - this question - do animals have souls or not - if we took a poll of simple "yes" or "no" or "don't know" answers to this forum - wouldn't we find out that the least kind and compassionate towards animals would be the no-answering people, somewhat compassionate the don't-know-answering people, and the kindest and most compassionate the yes-answering people? As we believe, whether fact or fiction, so we act.

So if you asked Jesus, what do you think he would answer?

Fish on Fridays? - he gives permission for that for us - but there is no report I can recall of Jesus ever eating fish. And interesting that he would not have people eat fish on the Sabbath, the most holy day. Most meat-eating Westerners interpret that as meat every day, but fish on fridays, where it is far more likely to mean, pulse every day, but fish ok on fridays.
In the Old Testament there is a story - Brian? you'll be able to tell me which one it is- about someone on "just pulse" and pious, overcoming the buff, meat-eating King's men.